Where's the NRA

[Gern Blansten]

nm

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[gasattack3]

Blade, didn't you know that the role of government is to help the people and not further their own interests?

I mean, if you look at history, governments have always been there to help the people they govern, no?

 

[periopdoc]

I know PeriopDoc put a lot of time into that graph, etc. It's appreciated. But to say that my feelings about gun control are lacking, and that I don't "really understand" the stats, are signs of my lack of statistical conceptualizing -- is utterly ridiculous.

Except that some of your stats (Mother Jones) are not even stats and the other stats that you posted do not support the conclusion that you are trying to make with them. Even the authors of the study you posted do not agree with the conclusion you are trying to make from their data. You can't seem to appreciate that, and that is why I question your understanding of basic statistics.


For those of you, like me who did a double take on the Mother Jones data like I did, here is an excellent explanation of why the their data is useless for trending etc. It is a good and very quick read.

Mathematical Malpractice Watch: Guns

It is a truism of science that the more narrowly you define your sample and the more you shrink the number of data points, the less reliable your conclusions will be

They’ve narrowed the sample so far down that they are essentially looking at noise.

I don't know where he found the raw data that I couldn't (perhaps he extrapolated numbers from the graph), but he was able to run some statistical analysis.

I plugged their data into a fitting program and found that, even with their highly biased and useless sample, the rate of injury from mass shooting is increasing at a rate of about 1.2 victims per year over the entire 30 years. Dropping Aurora reduces that to 0.7 injuries or deaths per year (I analyzed combined deaths and injuries so as not to confound the effect of improved trauma care). And the scatter in the fit is 27 victims. If you assume that there is no increase in mass shootings, you only increase the scatter to 29 victims. That’s … not something you can draw a conclusion from.

- pod

 

[pie944]

I know PeriopDoc put a lot of time into that graph, etc. It's appreciated. But to say that my feelings about gun control are lacking, and that I don't "really understand" the stats, are signs of my lack of statistical conceptualizing -- is utterly ridiculous.

You gun-lovers are SO honed in on your personal preferences that you simply will not even logically consider all the stats I (time consumingly posted).

Like arguing with religious zealots, as I've stated before.

D712

I didn't say your feeling about gun control are lacking, I said the statistical analysis from your studies is.

I said you did understand statistics.

You are posting studies and numbers that are lacking statistical analysis, would you accept a medical study that lacked statistical analysis?

 

[periopdoc]

America is a Violent Country



but we are clearly on the right path. The enactment and expiration of the assault weapons ban did not effect the trajectory one way or the other.

While it would be going overboard to credit any of this decrease to a reduction in limitations on the right to keep and bear arms, it is clear that the easing of restrictions has not increased the rate nor has it slowed the rate at which death from assault is declining.

- pod

 

[doctor712]

The Hon. Ms. Feinstein wouldn't take my call but the Calguns Foundation has prepared a nice FAQ on what constitutes an assault weapon in the State of California. Guess what is on that list?

This is a Glock 19. The current California "assault weapon" ban Dianne Feinstein authored classifies it a Category III "assault weapon" and possession is a felony.

- pod

I'd rather an imperfection on the side of safety, at this point (i.e. 30,000 gun deaths a year in the US, it's an epidemic).

Otherwise, I've always hated Feinstein, ALWAYS, I'm on her side here. Along with Bloomberg, Lieberman...and three dozen other Senators. (along with the majority of the US I believe).

Look, I'm not arguing how do we perfect n AWB, I'm arguing first and foremost: we have a gun problem in the US. How to solve that is up for debate. What I am equally arguing is that there are certain facts out there one being -- that nobody on SDN, NOBODY, myself included, knows how a current, modern day AWB would affect shootings, mass murders in the US. We've debated the evidence, there are CLEARLY two sides to this argument. I'm on one side of the fence. JWK, PGG and others are on the opposite side. Period. If you think you have the absolute solution, please, lemme know. I'd certainly like Wednesday's Powerball numbers at the same time.

D712

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[doctor712]

Blade,

have you ever read any of the Federalist Papers? Totally genuine and curious question...

D712

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

Blade,

have you ever read any of the Federalist Papers? Totally genuine and curious question...

D712

Absolutely.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Merry Christmas. I bet that number is now over 95 guns per 100 people in the USA.

 

[doctor712]

"If facts are changing, law cannot be static."

Translation: they're gonna ban the ****ing AWs you guys so love.

Supreme Court Justice
Felix Frankfuter ('48-'62)

 

[doctor712]

Absolutely.

Then you know the purpose of said papers, and the author of the majority of the papers?

D712

 

[BLADEMDA]

"If facts are changing, law cannot be static."

Translation: they're gonna ban the ****ing AWs you guys so love.

Supreme Court Justice
Felix Frankfuter ('48-'62)

That could indeed end up being the case which explains the panic buying of AR15s/AK47s throughout the USA over the past few days. The shelves are cleaned out.

 

[doctor712]

"Liberty implies the absence of arbitary restraint, not
immunity from reasonable regulations..."

Charles Evans Hughes, 1937
Associate and CHIEF Justice of the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

n.b. sure, and this should be the case too, Dr. I'll take clean shelves for a week in exchange for empty shelves for 20 years.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Then you know the purpose of said papers, and the author of the majority of the papers?

D712

Opposition to the Bill of Rights

The Federalist Papers (specifically Federalist No. 84) are notable for their opposition to what later became the United States Bill of Rights. The idea of adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution was originally controversial because the Constitution, as written, did not specifically enumerate or protect the rights of the people, rather it listed the powers of the government and left all that remained to the states and the people. Alexander Hamilton, the author of Federalist No. 84, feared that such an enumeration, once written down explicitly, would later be interpreted as a list of the only rights that people had.

However, Hamilton's opposition to a Bill of Rights was far from universal. Robert Yates, writing under the pseudonym Brutus, articulated this view point in the so-called Anti-Federalist No. 84, asserting that a government unrestrained by such a bill could easily devolve into tyranny. Other supporters of the Bill, such as Thomas Jefferson, argued that a list of rights would not and should not be interpreted as exhaustive; i.e., that these rights were examples of important rights that people had, but that people had other rights as well. People in this school of thought were confident that the judiciary would interpret these rights in an expansive fashion. The matter was further clarified by the Ninth Amendment.

 

[doctor712]

Interesting that you quote Jefferson, who a) wasn't present, or even in the US, in 1787 during the drafting of the US Constitution b) wanted the Constitution to be redrafted every 18 or 19 years, cannot recall which, imagine THAT idea, and c) had nearly nil to do with the US Constitution wording (giving a bit of credit to the letters back and forth between Madison and Jefferson during the summer, but not much).

But I do like your Madison quote, as he was the subject of my thesis, and the TRUE leader, framer and founder of the US Constitutional Convention, summer of 1787.

The US was SO different then, I simply take these rights with a grain of salt (these were slave owners mind you) and await their adaptation pursuant to the times (see Dred Scott, Korematsu, Patriot Act etc). It's always worked this way, and will always continue to work this way. It's a living document, and it's about to take a shot of whisky!!! During no time has America's opinion been stronger for the regulation of guns, IMHO.

D712

 

[doctor712]

Opposition to the Bill of Rights

The Federalist Papers (specifically Federalist No. 84) are notable for their opposition to what later became the United States Bill of Rights. The idea of adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution was originally controversial because the Constitution, as written, did not specifically enumerate or protect the rights of the people, rather it listed the powers of the government and left all that remained to the states and the people. Alexander Hamilton, the author of Federalist No. 84, feared that such an enumeration, once written down explicitly, would later be interpreted as a list of the only rights that people had.

However, Hamilton's opposition to a Bill of Rights was far from universal. Robert Yates, writing under the pseudonym Brutus, articulated this view point in the so-called Anti-Federalist No. 84, asserting that a government unrestrained by such a bill could easily devolve into tyranny. Other supporters of the Bill, such as Thomas Jefferson, argued that a list of rights would not and should not be interpreted as exhaustive; i.e., that these rights were examples of important rights that people had, but that people had other rights as well. People in this school of thought were confident that the judiciary would interpret these rights in an expansive fashion. The matter was further clarified by the Ninth Amendment.

Blade,

Yale's AVALON project is a fantastic resource for the Federalist Papers. (better than wikipedia surely).

The opposition to the BILL OF RIGHTS was an argument presented in Federalist #84, a paper really aimed at the State of New York to RATIFY the US Constitution (that was the point of the papers in total, btw) (thus, it's a sales pitch), and yes, assuring the lack of a need of the Bill of Rights was the aim of the paper you mention (84).

But other Federalist Papers (there were 85 altogether), were simply published in NY state to get the Constitution ratified, so, it was a nice sales pitch. A HUGE OP ED if you will. And how much weight can we give to these papers, written anonymously in 1787, to get a state to ratify a new Constitution, so that the Articles of Confederation (which were allowing the US to fall to shambles) would go away???

Zilch. It means nothing in a Gun Rights debate. Zilch

D712

 

[Random Anesthesiologist]

nm

 

[doctor712]

Blade,

I would really love to continue the debate, but I have a script deadline to tend to, I must entertain all the Gun-lovers on SDN with some more violent, dramatic television. I should probably listen to the NRA Chief and limit my use of guns and mentions of COD video games in this script...

NOT.

Funny how we didn't have this level of mass murdering in the US when Miami Vice was on... And they used Uzis, lots and lots of Uzis!

That dude needs a lobotomy.

D712

 

[Random Anesthesiologist]

nm

 

[periopdoc]

Funny how we didn't have this level of mass murdering in the US when Miami Vice was on... And they used Uzis, lots and lots
D712

Yes, in fact we did, and homicide rates in the 80's were higher than they are now.

Quit saying things that are demonstrably false. As I clearly laid out to you earlier in this thread, there has been no increase in the number of mass murders nor in the number of victims per year. Both have been holding steady for at least 30 years.

Facts don't seem to be a significant priority for you.


-pod

 

[periopdoc]

I'm arguing first and foremost: we have a gun problem in the US. How to solve that is up for debate. What I am equally arguing is that there are certain facts out there one being -- that nobody on SDN, NOBODY, myself included, knows how a current, modern day AWB would affect shootings, mass murders in the US. We've debated the evidence, there are CLEARLY two sides to this argument. I'm on one side of the fence. JWK, PGG and others are on the opposite side. Period. If you think you have the absolute solution, please, lemme know. I'd certainly like Wednesday's Powerball numbers at the same time.

D712

And there you go trying to change the goal posts again. Are we talking about the overall gun problem? We can do that, but I am pretty sure that we were specifically talking about mass murders, those nasty so called assault weapons, and the (negligible) effect of the previous assault weapons ban on crime rates.

We know exactly what a modern day assault weapons ban would look like, worthless. One of the most stringent assault weapons bans in place is in Connecticut.

- pod

 

[jwk]

Yes, in fact we did, and homicide rates in the 80's were higher than they are now.

Quit saying things that are demonstrably false. As I clearly laid out to you earlier in this thread, there has been no increase in the number of mass murders nor in the number of victims per year. Both have been holding steady for at least 30 years.

Facts don't seem to be a significant priority for you.


-pod

Of course he's not interested in facts. But hey - his type rarely are.

 

[doctor712]

Yes, in fact we did, and homicide rates in the 80's were higher than they are now.

Quit saying things that are demonstrably false. As I clearly laid out to you earlier in this thread, there has been no increase in the number of mass murders nor in the number of victims per year. Both have been holding steady for at least 30 years.

Facts don't seem to be a significant priority for you.


-pod

I disagree with your data. As far as Mass Murders, this year was clearly worse than any in the 80s. Chart. Data. FACT.

NEW DATA: (from Psychology Today). And I quote,

"According to the 2010 FBI crime data, since 1980, single victim killings have dropped by more than 40 percent. While that's very good news, there's a new sobering trend: Mass murders are on the rise. This New York Times article researched the frequency of mass murders. It found during the 20th century there were about one to two mass murders per decade until 1980. Then for no apparent reason they spiked, with nine during the 1980s and 11 in the 1990s. Since the year 2000 there have been at least 26, including the massacre in Aurora, Colorado."

We can now make that 27. Article was published in July. So, true, we had mass murders in the 80s, but nowhere near the extent since the 2000s (i.e. 6 years post ban and counting).

Do EITHER you or JWK dispute this article?

D712

 

[doctor712]

And there you go trying to change the goal posts again. Are we talking about the overall gun problem? We can do that, but I am pretty sure that we were specifically talking about mass murders, those nasty so called assault weapons, and the (negligible) effect of the previous assault weapons ban on crime rates.

We know exactly what a modern day assault weapons ban would look like, worthless. One of the most stringent assault weapons bans in place is in Connecticut.

- pod

You left out the Powerball numbers for Wednesday night...



POD,

You were personally very helpful to me this year, with many of my questions and concerns. I appreciated that and shared that appreciation with you. I really don't want to continue our back and forth as it's one of those situations where it will just spiral, so, perhaps we can just agree to disagree once and for all.

D712

 

[pd4emergence]

You left out the Powerball numbers for Wednesday night...



POD,

You were personally very helpful to me this year, with many of my questions and concerns. I appreciated that and shared that appreciation with you. I really don't want to continue our back and forth as it's one of those situations where it will just spiral, so, perhaps we can just agree to disagree once and for all.

D712

Personally, I think the back and forth is exactly what you want. I have news for you, you aren't going to change any minds on this board. Some people will see it your way and some people won't. No matter how much evidence you present. In my mind, you have become a troll. It seems every post you write is a challenge to someone on this board with an opposing viewpoint. You seem to be as close minded as the people on the other side of the issue and seem to be trying to keep the discourse at a maximum. I am not sure why people even bother to keep responding to you. Don't feed the troll.

 

[periopdoc]

NEW DATA: (from Psychology Today). And I quote,

"According to the 2010 FBI crime data, since 1980, single victim killings have dropped by more than 40 percent. While that's very good news, there's a new sobering trend: Mass murders are on the rise. This New York Times article researched the frequency of mass murders. It found during the 20th century there were about one to two mass murders per decade until 1980. Then for no apparent reason they spiked, with nine during the 1980s and 11 in the 1990s. Since the year 2000 there have been at least 26, including the massacre in Aurora, Colorado."

We can now make that 27. Article was published in July. So, true, we had mass murders in the 80s, but nowhere near the extent since the 2000s (i.e. 6 years post ban and counting).

Do EITHER you or JWK dispute this article?

D712

Yes I do dispute the article, and it is not data, it appears to be a hastily written article, looking for the root cause of mass shootings, which takes it's numbers from other secondary sources.


Do you even bother to fully read the articles that you quote and then look to see where their numbers come from?

The Psychology Today article uses numbers that are accurate on U.S. single victim killings. Although the author is citing DailyKos who took the numbers from a HuffPo article, the ultimate source of the data is the accurate and unbiased 2010 FBI crime data. As an aside, it is notable that the HuffPo article also has this to say about mass murders.

Between 1980 and 2008, 4,685 people died in 965 mass-murders, a Scripps-Howard study of FBI data revealed. Despite recent headline-grabbing incidents... group murders have remained close to the average of 20 a year for decades, according to USA Today.

However, when the author of the Psychology Today article went looking for data on Mass Murders, he cited an op-ed piece in The New York Times by David Brooks. This is actually an excellent op-ed which I highly recommend to all who are reading this. Unfortunately, Mr. Brooks op-ed is not, in fact, talking about U.S. mass murders. In fact it was not an article that "researched the frequency of mass murders" as claimed in the Psych Today article. Instead, it was an article looking at options to prevent spree killings. In it, he does cite some quasi statistics about an increased frequency of INTERNATIONAL spree killings. Unfortunately, we don't know what criteria he used to define spree killings, or more importantly what his exclusion criteria were for shootings that were not included in his data, but clearly this data cannot be used to look at trends in mass murders or mass shootings in the U.S.

Interestingly though, he does mention three cases that took place since the 1990s in countries with significant gun control laws in effect, two in Germany and one in Norway.

He also has this to say about the effect of gun control laws and spree killings

These days, people are trying to use the Aurora killings as a pretext to criticize America’s gun culture or to call for stricter gun control laws. (This doesn’t happen after European or Asian spree killings.) Personally, I’ve supported tighter gun control laws. But it’s not clear that those laws improve public safety. Researchers reviewing the gun control literature for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, were unable to show the laws are effective.

And gun control laws are probably even less germane in these cases. Rampage killers tend to be meticulous planners. If they can’t find an easy way to get a new gun, they’ll surely find a way to get one of the 200 million guns that already exist in this country. Or they’ll use a bomb or find another way.

At least the author of the Psych Today article realizes that

Regardless of how you feel about gun control in general, there is no correlation between gun control strictness and mass murder.

even if he is just parroting a CNN article that doesn't give us any statistics to back up their claim.

I disagree with your data. As far as Mass Murders, this year was clearly worse than any in the 80s. Chart. Data. FACT.

I have already pointed out to you why, with extreme absolute rarity of the occurrence of an event, any attempt to adjust the data, like Mother Jones did with the mass casualty shooting data, adds too much noise to the signal to make any credible conclusion about trends in the occurrence of an event.

I refer you to this mea-culpa (of sorts) article in the Washington Post, Perhaps mass shootings aren’t becoming more common in which the author admits that he may have been mislead by the Mother Jones data. He does not discuss why the exclusion criteria used by Mother Jones leads to errors, but does admit that it does not give us the whole picture.

I also refer you to the quote above from HuffPo regarding the decade long constant rate of "group murder."

- pod

 

[periopdoc]

Editorial: Laws don't stop shooting sprees - The Orange County Register (quoting John Lott)

...in Germany, a country with some of the strictest gun control in the world, they have had three of the worst five [school] multiple-victim public shootings in the world – all occurring over the last decade.

Make that three of the worst six now.

- pod

 

[periopdoc]

You were personally very helpful to me this year, with many of my questions and concerns. I appreciated that and shared that appreciation with you. I really don't want to continue our back and forth as it's one of those situations where it will just spiral, so, perhaps we can just agree to disagree once and for all.

D712

My personal feelings toward you have nothing to do with this argument or why I helped out this summer. However, I can't sit back and let you post stuff that is blatantly wrong without a response. I tried. If you had a strong case, backed up with facts and statistics, then I could agree to disagree.

I would be lying if I said I don't want you to make a strong case. You are, potentially, headed into a career where your ability to critically evaluate data for real significance and applicability will mean the difference in a patient's life and your risk of lawsuit. You need to learn sift through the mass of junk out there, or if you already know how, you should demonstrate it.

- pod

 

[hoyden]

I think we should encourage teachers, coaches and school staff to be trained as reserve deputies, and pay them more for that responsibility. They then would have advanced law enforcement and weapons training. If 3 or 4 people in that school were trained and carrying, the crime may have been stopped in the hallway.

Agree completely.

But I would add the words - the ones who wish to

 

[hoyden]

When comparing the US to industrialized eastern countries we lead them by 12X in gun deaths. Moreover, a much larger percentage of eastern gun deaths are suicide; where, a larger percentage of our gun deaths are homicide.

That is simply NOT true. overall ~ 38.000 people die every year from firearms and only ~ 11.000 of that figure is a homicide. The others are suicides or accidents

 

[hoyden]

The 2nd Amendment isn't about deer hunting. It's about killing people. Enacting an "assault" weapon ban makes as much sense as clipping off 3 out of 4 tines on a fork because it's too efficient at picking up tomato slices. Aside from being totally ineffective at its stated aim, it misses the entire point of having the tool in the first place.

 

[dhb]

I disagree with your data. As far as Mass Murders, this year was clearly worse than any in the 80s. Chart. Data. FACT.

NEW DATA: (from Psychology Today). And I quote,

"According to the 2010 FBI crime data, since 1980, single victim killings have dropped by more than 40 percent. While that's very good news, there's a new sobering trend: Mass murders are on the rise. This New York Times article researched the frequency of mass murders. It found during the 20th century there were about one to two mass murders per decade until 1980. Then for no apparent reason they spiked, with nine during the 1980s and 11 in the 1990s. Since the year 2000 there have been at least 26, including the massacre in Aurora, Colorado."

We can now make that 27. Article was published in July. So, true, we had mass murders in the 80s, but nowhere near the extent since the 2000s (i.e. 6 years post ban and counting).

Do EITHER you or JWK dispute this article?

D712

So 30k gun related death with lets say 100 from mass murders that's 29900 coming from a 40% decrease which means the former number was almost 50k. So even is mass murders were to go up 100% you would be looking at a 100 death increase in mass murders vs a 20k decrease in gun related deaths.
Not a bad deal imho

 

[countingdays]

So 30k gun related death with lets say 100 from mass murders that's 29900 coming from a 40% decrease which means the former number was almost 50k. So even is mass murders were to go up 100% you would be looking at a 100 death increase in mass murders vs a 20k decrease in gun related deaths.
Not a bad deal imho

Well. I think people take comfort in thinking (rightly or wrongly) that most murders are crime and drug related with non-random victims. Mass murders seem worse, despite smaller total numbers, due to the often random nature of the crimes.

 

[BADMD]

I don't know where security expert Bruce Schneier lies on the gun control spectrum, but he wrote an article after the Aurora shooting (which was a re-write of two articles that he has previously written) that is en point:

"Drawing the Wrong Lessons from Horrific Events"
http://www.schneier.com/essay-401.html

 

[periopdoc]

"Drawing the Wrong Lessons from Horrific Events"
http://www.schneier.com/essay-401.html

It is called the fallacy of misleading vividness. An even better analysis of the subject, from a liberal gun owner, is here.

Why Not Renew the “Assault Weapons” Ban? Well, I’ll Tell You…

The fallacy of misleading vividness is when the thought, imagery or reality of something is so emotionally potent – positively or negatively – that you begin to overestimate the likelihood and frequency of its occurrence.

if we were to prioritize our political attention to topics according to how many lives were at stake, mass shootings wouldn’t even be on the radar.

Factoring in the rate of death caused by mass shootings from Columbine to the present (about 210 people in 13 years), it will be more than 300 years until we reach the number of casualties that occur from accidental drownings every single year in this country. In a little more than 150 years from now, we’ll approach the number of people who are poisoned to death every single year in this country. Sometime in 2014 we might surpass the number of people struck by lightning every single year in this country.

Which is to say that mass shootings are incredibly rare and don’t kill a lot of people when they do happen.

It is tempting to ask why accidental drowning is not 340 times more important a social issue than gun control. Or why poisoning isn’t 150 times as pressing a political issue. (If the number of people dying is truly what’s important, almost anything would be more pressing.)

A great read from, like I said, a liberal gun owner.

- pod

 

[periopdoc]

So 30k gun related death with lets say 100 from mass murders that's 29900 coming from a 40% decrease which means the former number was almost 50k. So even is mass murders were to go up 100% you would be looking at a 100 death increase in mass murders vs a 20k decrease in gun related deaths.
Not a bad deal imho

The 30k number is a little misleading as it includes ~18,000 suicides and ~800 unintentional deaths. Adjust your numbers to ~11,000 homicides. 100 from mass murders is a little high on average, but makes the math easy so I will stick with it.

That is 10,900 coming from a 40% decrease meaning the former number was 18,166 giving 100 increase vs 7,266 decrease.

Of course, there is no need to calculate it since we already know that the actual peak homicide rate was actually about 24,000 in 1993.

If anyone wants to question the stats, I can provide appropriate citations.

- pod

 

[RT2MD]

It is called the fallacy of misleading vividness. An even better analysis of the subject, from a liberal gun owner, is here.

Why Not Renew the "Assault Weapons" Ban? Well, I'll Tell You…




A great read from, like I said, a liberal gun owner.

- pod

Thanks for posting that "Why Not Renew the "Assault Weapons" Ban? Well, I'll Tell You…" article/blog/whatever the hell it is. I stumbled upon that a while back and thought it was well written, kind of talks to both sides in my mind. I was going to post it here as well... Just hadn't gotten around to it. Thanks!

 

[doctor712]

I didn't say your feeling about gun control are lacking, I said the statistical analysis from your studies is.

I said you did understand statistics.

You are posting studies and numbers that are lacking statistical analysis, would you accept a medical study that lacked statistical analysis?

No, I wouldn't accept studies for medicine that weren't peer reviewed. Was the Harvard paper using peer reviewed studies? I thought so, I guess I should have dug a little deeper when trusting a study out of Harvard's MPH program.

D712

 

[doctor712]

My personal feelings toward you have nothing to do with this argument or why I helped out this summer. However, I can't sit back and let you post stuff that is blatantly wrong without a response. I tried. If you had a strong case, backed up with facts and statistics, then I could agree to disagree.

I would be lying if I said I don't want you to make a strong case. You are, potentially, headed into a career where your ability to critically evaluate data for real significance and applicability will mean the difference in a patient's life and your risk of lawsuit. You need to learn sift through the mass of junk out there, or if you already know how, you should demonstrate it.

- pod

Pod,

When I'm here, on SDN, the anonymous internet forum, needless to say, I have only a certain amount of time to dig for details, read them, and post them on the page. The fact that you equate that to my potential medical future, or my current career, is utterly ridiculous, with all due respect. What you're allowing yourself to do is basically say that all your data are perfect, and mine are imperfect. That the information I pull from articles is less relevant than what you pull. Frankly, it's like me saying you're not a competent anesthesiologist because you're not able to see the data I have presented as being as valid as the US G feels it is when they PUBLISH it. It's a ridiculous argument, because, also frankly, your job is one thing, and you are at your most critical when dealing with a human life. Please don't equate that to my postings here, or what I accomplish/have accomplished/will accomplish in academia or the anesthesia lab or as an MD. My work speaks for itself, and I have been commended up and down regarding my statistical, analytical, verbal and interpretive skills. That's insulting, though I see your purpose as a kind one, it's just misguided. I really don't need a lesson on being critical here in a gun topic on SDN with a pro-gun advocate like yourself.

The reason for you denying my data (published data), simply, I believe you're a gun advocate and are not -- at all -- being fully objective. I have posted data from the FBI, Harvard, US Gov Panels and you have shoved it all aside under the guise of, "negligible". What you call negligible, I call measurable. I have posted data that show AW+LCM = more deaths than a 9mm. You say that data is/are false. And push it aside by adding that it's a fraction of the problem, ok, so let's start by a) fixing that fraction. When you treat your patient, Dr, do you do it wholistically, or piecemeal? I would imagine that is you treat your patients like you do your gun data, you'd have more deaths on the table because medicine isn't best practiced with one's head in the sand...

The facts are very simple:

1) many more people are killed in the US with handguns than AWs...

2) mass murders (using AWs I believe) are on the rise in the US when looking at a 30 year trend.

3) more guns = more gun homicides (Harvard study).

4) when AWs are used with LCM, significantly more people are struck with bullets than when a standard pistol is used -- HOWEVER - this still makes up a small number of US gun deaths overall. (wow, what a happy distinction).

5) 2012 reached new heights in Mass Murder gun deaths in the US (I didn't go back earlier than 70s looking at charts, but I believe
this is what's been widely reported).

6) AWs are easily convertible to fully automatic, and even a standard clip holds, what 30 rounds, which is 24 more than a pistol and a dozen more than a Glock. I just don't hear of murders where Glocks are used as in the pic with 100 rounds

7) 11,000 people die every year in the US through gun-related murders, in the UK, last year there were 39.

8) First world countries like the UK, Japan, Germany and Australia have a MINUTE FRACTION of GUN HOMICIDES as compared to the US.

9) Even though the US makes up 5% of the world's geography, we own ~40% of its guns. (anyone see a trend in ownership and murders?)

10) The 2nd amendment, like all others, is limitable.

11) (I don't have data on this one, sorry, but from the Ryder Doc, does anyone disagree) A rifle shot (specifically the AR-15 that was used in Aurora and Newtown) does more damage at close and distant ranges due to bullet velocity and round type compared to a 9mm pistol. (Accurate? Asking genuinely?)

Those are the facts (aside from 11, which I'm sure will be debated by the gun-loving docs here, please debate this while you're at it F=ma).

Now, the debate is:

1) Will less guns available to US citizens = less GUN deaths? (I showed data from 94-04 that argues yes).

2) Will different guns available to US citizens = less deaths? (I showed CLEAR US G data that demonstrated AW + LCM = more deaths and injury than compared to pistols, so I say yes, so does the US G it seems.)

3) Will the 2nd amendment get further restricted, I believe yes.

3a) And if so, will it HELP with the gun issue (as a facet of new legislation, I say yes, based on 1 and 2 just above.

4) Is there even a gun/homicide problem in the US. With 11,000 deaths a year (aside from the 9,000 accidents - and what a kid shooting himself with dad's gun accidentally DOESN'T COUNT?! -- and 30,000 total, I would say, when using other countries as a barometer, and a little ****ing common sense, YES.

5) Should your rights be limited further because of #4? I argue YES. There's a clear public danger, and a clear public benefit. When balancing that with the 2nd amendment (as we must do), I believe the US tide, and SCOTUS listens of course - despite what they say - says it's time to make some MEANINGFUL CHANGES that will decrease 30,000 to 29,000 and so forth. If you argue that it's just 11,000 murders, then 100 of those is what, about 1%. Would you take a 1% decrease in your OR mortality this year?

D712

 

[doctor712]

https://kontradictions.wordpress.co...ew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/

is not peer-reviewed scientific data, so it's opinionated one-sided crap.

If you'd like, I can reach out to one of the surviving family members (perhaps even a previously NRA-member) and ask them to write a BLOG entitled

"Why renew the assault weapons ban, well I'll tell you."

Moving on.

D712

 

[Per4mer8]

5) Should your rights be limited further because of #4? I argue YES. There's a clear public danger, and a clear public benefit. When balancing that with the 2nd amendment (as we must do), I believe the US tide, and SCOTUS listens of course - despite what they say - says it's time to make some MEANINGFUL CHANGES that will decrease 30,000 to 29,000 and so forth. If you argue that it's just 11,000 murders, then 100 of those is what, about 1%. Would you take a 1% decrease in your OR mortality this year?

D712

Is there a clear public danger from tobacco, alcohol, or even high fructose corn syrup, etc?? Yes. Would there be a clear public benefit to banning all of these things? Yes. I'm sure we could drop heart disease,lung disease, obesity/DM by 1% if we did this........

 

[doctor712]

Is there a clear public danger from tobacco, alcohol, or even high fructose corn syrup, etc?? Yes. Would there be a clear public benefit to banning all of these things? Yes. I'm sure we could drop heart disease,lung disease, obesity/DM by 1% if we did this........

The comparisons to cars, cigarettes and alcohol with guns is and always has been ridiculous. Let's just ban Jujubees and M&Ms too. Is that your argument: in order to have a reasonable conversation about gun limits, that we need to ban M&Ms or High Fructose Corn Syrup? I'll tell you what, when you throw a bag of M&Ms or a jar of corn syrup at a room of kids, and kill 26 of them, please ban them. Until that time, it's not a fair comparison.
I've also never advocated a full-weapons ban. There is a place for the 2nd amendment. Just not where it stands currently.

There are anti-obesity diets, programs, foundations, PSAs. There are also organizations whose commercials I watch that say corn syrup is fine in small quantities. Is killing kids with guns ok in small quantities?

What do you do as a doctor when someone with a BMI of 55 walks into your clinic and asks if they should eat a bag of M&Ms? Do you tell them they have a right to eat them, and show them the nearest Supermarket? Or would you advise that they eat a healthier diet. Let's pretend you're a cardiologist, as I'm sure the humorous anesthesiologist replies will follow.

Lastly, Clear and Present Danger was usually referring to the 1st amendment and the right to free speech or curtail it. There is a definition to Clear and Present Danger. A gun is an immediate threat to someone's danger. Sadly, corn syrup, alcohol and evennnnnntually cigarettes are not imminent or IMMEDIATE threat to human health or life (as in getting stampeded in a movie theater when someone yells fire.) All the above take years to kill Sadly, smokers have an urge that overrides this tidbit of fact. I've never smoked a cigarette in my life. Blechhhh. So, from this POV, none of your examples fulfill Clear and Present Danger as currently defined.

D712

 

[Per4mer8]

And what's your argument? That we should enact sweeping change, that will surely only be followed by the law-abiding citizens, to restrict a constitutional right, in an attempt to POSSIBLY limit/reduce the amount of people killed in "mass murder" scenarios......all based on a recent event that is arguably an outlier? I mean come on.

I tend to look at things in a "return on investment" kind of way, what would be a better use of our dollars, especially in this day and age; reducing all cause mortality with improved health care/diet or passing legislation that MAY help save ~30-100 individuals in the next few years, again, at the cost of limiting the rights of millions?

Don't interpret this as me not caring about the tragedy. I think its horrible. And I don't even own a gun. But I think its obvious that the unfortunate error here was with the storage of the gun, and the parenting. Why not increase the punishment for inappropriate storage etc by the gun owner?

And obviously the high fructose corn syrup example was a jest although I'd be ok with it because jujubees suck.